Madras High Court. File
| Photo Credit: PICHUMANI K
In a twist to a complaint regarding the alleged receipt of ₹50 lakh by a designated senior advocate from his client, supposedly for bribing a judge of the Madras High Court, the All India Lawyers Associaition for Justice (AILAJ) based in Tirunelveli has written to the High Court’s Registrar General, stating the name of the association had been misused by someone.
In the letter addressed to Registrar General S. Alli, AILAJ State coordinator U. Adhiyaman said: “We are shocked to know that the name of our organisation… has been misused in a fake letter sent to honourable Justice M. Nirmal Kumar about a senior counsel of the High Court in connection with the case numbers… which we came to know through daily news papers dated February 15, 2026.”
The letter went on to read: “We humbly submit that we have never sent any such letter to the honourable Justice Mr. Nirmal Kumar or to any other authority, from our organisation, and our organisation is in no way connected with the purported complaint.” AILAJ also stated its State chapter was based in Tirunelveli and not at Thambu Chetty Street in Chennai, as had been mentioned in the fake letter head.
The association also clarified none of its members function from the Thambu Chetty Street address either. “We also humbly submit that we do not have the post of Secretary as mentioned in that fake letter. The Tamil Nadu State Chapter of AILAJ operates under State Coordinators, of whom I am one. It is submitted that the misuse of our organisation’s name is a malafide attempt to defame and malign our organisation,” Mr. Adhiyaman added.
Stating AIALJ would be lodging a separate police complaint regarding misuse of its name, the association requested the Registrar General, too, to take necessary action from her end regarding the fake letter.
What is the case about?
Justice Nirmal Kumar had recently ordered an inquiry by the High Court’s vigilance cell regarding a letter written to him in the name of AILAJ, alleging a designated senior advocate practising in the High Court had “collected” ₹50 lakh from two litigants for being given to the judge to pass favourable orders in two connected cases, but the counsel was unable to secure any such order so far.
Besides ordering such an inquiry, the judge had recused from hearing the two cases related to the discharge and quashing of a charge sheet filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation in a ₹89.90 crore billion trading scam case agianst Naresh Prasad Agarwal and N. Ganesh Agarwal of Chennai.
The High Court’s now-retired judge T. Mathivanan had disposed of both the cases by way of a common order on April 17, 20217. He had quashed the charge sheet against one of the accused and discharged the other accused from the criminal case. However, on appeal, the Supreme Court remanded the matters for a fresh hearing.
After the remand, Justice Kumar had been hearing both the cases together since September 22, 2025, and had been adjourning them from time to time. On January 12, 2026, a letter was addressed to the judge in the name of AIALJ and the address of the association was shown to be Thambu Chetty Street in letter head.
The letter read: “Respected Lordship, a senior advocate has collected a sum of ₹50 lakh from the client stating that the said amount has to be given to your Lordship in respect of the cases… heard by Your Lordship. However, even after the receipt of the said amount, no order has been passed till date in the said case. We therefore humbly request your Lordship to kindly pass suitable order in favour of client. Otherwise, request your Lordship to kindly initiate suitable action in respect of the above said said case.”
A copy of the letter was also marked to the Union Ministry of Law and Justice and the CBI headquarters in New Delhi. The Ministry on January 22, 2026, forwarded the letter to the Madras High Court Registry “for taking necessary action.” The High Court Registry received the Ministry’s communication on February 3, 2026, and placed it before Justice Kumar who made an inquiry with the senior advocate representing the two petitioners.
The senior counsel stoutly denied the allegation and expressed his willingness to cooperate with any kind of inquiry. On his part, the CBI Special Public Prosecutor K. Srinivasan said, that the practice of writing such letters should not be entertained since they affect the dignity of the court and said that steps must be taken to find out the individual who had sent such a false representation.
After hearing both sides, the judge decided to recuse from the matter and ordered a vigilance inquiry.
Published – February 16, 2026 05:58 pm IST
